« Carrot Sticks And Onion Rings | Main | This Week's Music Prediction »

June 20, 2007

Comments

I can't believe I'm defending her (oh, sure I can, I'll argue with anything), but the followup did identify 'I doubt if any blogger will disagree' as intentional baiting. And if that was intentional baiting, it only works if she knows the whole onion ring bit was nutty enough to make people go off on her.

So, the whole thing looks to me like an intentional stunt, rather than meaningfully revealing much about Althouse's belief that anything she's saying makes sense.

If you almost certainly won't vote for Hilary ( assuming she gets the nomination), who earth can you vote for? The Republican candidates are all either crazy or fakes.

Seriously. You seem like a tempermentally moderate guy who respects facts and the rule of law. None of the Republican candidates are like that.

All of the Republican candidates would continue to run the country the same way Bush has because they share his faults: the disrepect for facts, the desire to serve the party more than the nation, and the inability to distinguish media events and spin from substance.

Granted I'm a Democrat,so my presective is not the same as yours, but these guys are all pretty far out in the ozone. Two Gitmos? Bomb, bomb,bomb Iran? Defend the country but skip Iraq Study Group meetinngs? Meet with Margaret Thatcher to establish defense credentials (and revive that red pick up truck to show authenticity!) What a bunch of flakes and fakes.

I really truly wish the Republicans did have someone normal and decent in the race. The ony one who seems at all authenic is Huckabee and he's sincerely an extremist.

I was going to quibble with wonkie about "all" because of Huckabee but never mind. Also, there's Ron Paul.

I would guess Giuliani's a fairly reasonable vote for von, depending on how he feels about Kerik etc.

I am interested in von's objections to HRC - the substantive criticism I hear of her on the left is that she's probably really more centrist than her liberal image, which should make her ok by him. She's the strongest supporter of abortion rights in the field so I would guess SH would have a hard time with her - I'm interested in what he's thinking too (Paul?).

The whole "I was just trying to provoke the easily-manipulated liberals" schtick is straight out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. He routinely says offensive things under the pretense that it'll be entertaining to watch all the usual suspects take him seriously.

Some parts of Althouse's posts do sound like intentional satire, for what it's worth, and some parts sound absolutely serious. This sort of "Freudian analysis" is nothing but a joke to most people, after all.

But if the choice is between (1) she's just making a joke or (2) she's actually serious, just batshit insane, the presumption most of us would have in favor of (1) is overcome by the fact that Althouse has a track record (cf. Jessica Valenti's breasts) of harboring batshit insane theories when it comes to Bill Clinton. So it's very hard to give her the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, von can correct me if "cf." isn't the signal which the Bluebook would recommend in that spot, but somehow, the word "see" just didn't seem appropriate.

Shorter Ann Althouse's second onion ring post: I said something really stupid so that people would make fun of it, and they did! See how clever I am?

-- Sadly, no.

The idea that the onion ring post was some kind of prank--it's like if Instapundit wrote a post about turning Iran into a parking lot, then claimed he was just trying to send his critics into a tizzy--the putative satire depends on each blogger being "not really like that". And both bloggers have innumerable examples that prove they really are like that. Unless all of the previous posts were just piss-takes too.

It doesn't really matter if Althouse was serious about the onion rings, since we only have her word as evidence one way or the other. All that matters is that Althouse is perfectly capable of writing something like that in earnest.

Worth noting is that Althouse claims to have intentionally created all this, and several of her commentators claim (on her behalf) that this is a work of satirical genius.

She must be the Andy Kaufman of bloggers.

No, Althouse is crazy. She's the Norma Desmond of the blogosphere. One day, we'll wake up to find Jonah Goldberg face down in her swimming pool as she descends the stairs trilling, "I'm ready for my daytime show, Mr. Murdoch!"

kth: yep. Her central error is in this sentence:

"But nobody with any decent readership is dumb enough to say Althouse is crazy to think everyone will agree with that. Right?"

What would be so dumb about that?

One day, we'll wake up to find Jonah Goldberg face down in her swimming pool as she descends the stairs trilling, "I'm ready for my daytime show, Mr. Murdoch!"

Unfortunately, that will happen in February and Jonah will merely have suffered a concussion from falling on the ice. I wonder if that would allow him to begin to think.

By the way, von can correct me if "cf." isn't the signal which the Bluebook would recommend in that spot, but somehow, the word "see" just didn't seem appropriate.

Despite allegedly learning the Blue Book through-and-through for the law review, I am a terrible Blue Booker. Still, I believe that I would "see" in that instance. One uses cf. when the case is not directly on point but is nonetheless suggestive of the point being made. Under the new BB rules, one uses "see" when the case offers exemplary support for the point being. One uses no signal when the case directly supports the cited proposition. (This is a change from the old rules, in which you use "see" for both 2 & 3 and use no signal only in the case of a direct quote.)

Given all this, using "see" seems the most correct.

Wonkie, despite some important differences on campaign finance reform and some regulatory behavior, I continue to support McCain. He has been consistent -- and right -- in his criticisms of how the invasion of Iraq was executed. (And any mistake in voting for the war itself is shared by virtually all candidates save Obama.) He has been a strong voice for the rule of law.

A lot will depend, however, on how he reacts to the expected bad news in September.


I can't believe I'm defending her (oh, sure I can, I'll argue with anything), but the followup did identify 'I doubt if any blogger will disagree' as intentional baiting. And if that was intentional baiting, it only works if she knows the whole onion ring bit was nutty enough to make people go off on her.

I actually added an update on this point without having read your comment. It may very well have been intentional, or, possibly, its simply an after-the-fact rationalization for saying something stupid. So much of reading Althouse is trying to determine when she is being dense or intentionally dense. As I suggest, it's one of the reasons that I seldom read Althouse.

Under the new BB rules, one uses "see" when the case offers exemplary support for the point being made.

Damn, I guess I'm going to have to get a new Bluebook one of these days. Tho I think they're well past the point where they just change stuff up for the heck of it, to make everybody have to buy a new edition.

So.. I went and checked, just to be sure. My vagina is SO not circular. I thought about conducting an office wide poll just to make sure it wasn't ME or anything... but it's kinda personal.

If a circle is the international language for Vagina then why weren't all of Georgia O'Keefe's Paintings of big circles? Did I miss her Onion Ring Masterpeice?

I don't care if it is satire, or supposed to be satire or whatever, it is stupid.

Shinobi: I checked too. Not crispy or crunchy. If it had been, I'd be en route to the doctor's as we speak.

Also: not deep-fried. Not breaded or batter-coated. Not in any way part of the allium family. Does not in any way involve corn starch or saltines. The dissimilarities are endless.

Sayth the nutjob:
It's not the intent of the film's auteur -- unless he's a traitor to Clinton -- but it's imagery that they should have noticed as they were writing the script.

Yes, they should've made sure that no objects longer than they are wide appeared during the spot. Or any objects with holes in them. Or women other than Hillary. Or Hillary (since [w]henever we see them together, we think about their relationship and what he did to it). Or Bill alone, away from Hillary, or vice-versa.

As for Althouse's shtick:
1)Ann smears poo on her head, says "I love smearing poo on my head!"
2)Blogosphere collectively shakes head, says "So sad, Ann is crazy."
3)Ann furiously wipes poo off of her head, and says "Ha Ha! *You* are teh sad! I fooled you into thinking I am crazy!"
4)B.C. "Yes, we're sorry, we apologize for taking you seriously. Our bad."

Even if we take all this as true -- and maybe it is -- it still doesn't excuse these post as being terribly boring and unfunny. For satire to work, there has to be some plausible connection to reality.

Nuff said. Von wins!

Given all this, using "see" seems the most correct.

Your Farber-like response is much appreciated, von, but I was actually alluding to the fact that it might be considered rude to direct the reader to "see" someone's breasts.

By the way, I constantly wonder if your "large, Midwestern law firm" is the one I'm thinking of, where one of my good friends from law school happens to work, but I suppose such things must remain shrouded in mystery.

A commenter at TNR:

"Captain Picard saved the Federation. He saved hundreds of billions of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Star Trek: First Contact, where the Captain disobeys a direct order and intervenes in the Borg invasion before traveling back in time to save humanity, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand. "Are you going to convict Jean-Luc Picard?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that the laws of physics are against him? 'You have the right to a court martial?' Is any jury going to convict Captain Picard? I don't think so." Judge Scalia then proceeded to give Judge Anthony Kennedy the Vulcan neck pinch.

By the way, I constantly wonder if your "large, Midwestern law firm" is the one I'm thinking of, where one of my good friends from law school happens to work, but I suppose such things must remain shrouded in mystery.

Go ahead and take a guess, if you'd like. (I've actually worked at two, albeit in different cities).

As I wrote in the comments for Hilzoy's earlier post, I think it's fair to say that Althouse's "I doubt if any blogger will disagree" was intentionally ironic, as she claims (I took it that way). However, the rest of her follow-up post is a defense of the analysis itself, and she also posits herself an staggeringly insightful media analyst, "not so obedient," in contrast with the rabble. Althouse has demonstrated narcissism, a mammoth ego and horrible analytical skills in the past. She consistently deploys disingenuous arguments and an obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life. She has also demonstrated that she has absolutely no sense of humor about herself. I really don't think this is a hard call. She's nuts and she's proud of it. Even if one accepts that those critiquing and mocking Althouse misread her tone in one line (as she claims she intended them to do), it doesn't change the underlying, umm, pathology. But I see Hilzoy and KTH have covered this nicely above…

Posted by: Anderson | June 20, 2007 at 06:46 PM

Funny!

Still, I'll offer my two cents. I just don't see how crunchy, oniony hoop equals vagina.

It is obvious to me. I love me some onion rings, and, well, to be truthful, I kind of like that other thing there as well…

Jeeze. I was going to pass. Thullen? THULLEEEEN! (Streetcar Named Desire voice). [Jeeze, is he OK, anyone know what is up? He could smell this one without an Internet connection.]

She is a Link W… [Consults rules]. Ahem, she loves to post provocative stuff to rile people up and draw hits. She does this every 4-6 months. She gets the attention and the traffic she wants. You are falling for it. Briefly, you have been had (or as the cool kids say p3wn’d.)

OCSteve: see Carlton Wu's 6:25 PM. Alternatively, see my latest post [/shameless self promotion]

(Insert a cheeky ;-) in there somewhere.)

Does it start with an I, von?

Also: not deep-fried. Not breaded or batter-coated. Not in any way part of the allium family. Does not in any way involve corn starch or saltines. The dissimilarities are endless.

It's the making someone's eyes water that I would emphasize as being different, but maybe that's just me.

matttbastard: Agreed. Carleton, you too. Glad to see the OMGWTFBBQ on Celine. ;) WTF was that link? Never mind…

Does Althouse teach at an accredited school?

Thanks von, for respondinng.. I had a hunch that you were thinkng of McCain and he is the best of the bunch, IMO. I wish he hadn't compromised himself on torture, and I don't thinnk it is appropriate to make jokes about preemptively killing large numbers of civilians, especially in light of our experience in Iraq, but, at least in the past, he shown himself to be more than just a shill for the party. At least he isn't a global warming denier.

At least he isn't a global warming denier.

Yet.

Althouse, or someone pretending to be her & equally stupid, is defending herself at that Plank thread I linked above (the "Star Trek" bit).

Yikes, I'm really not drunk, but (1) it's a different TNR thread and (2) I think I thought this was an Unfogged thread when I posted that bit about Scalia. Oops. I blame LizardBreath.

Slightly OT (and hoping Gary's napping!)... assuming you all saw this last month, have you also seen this ?

Oooops. Vice versa. Sorry.

But am I contributing to the problem by feeding the beast?

Yes.

At least [McCain] isn't a global warming denier.

He's already shown a willingness to cater to the "Intelligent Design" morons, so it won't be long now, I'm sure.

And as for Teh Althouse, this was my favorite part of the whole unhinged, loony bit:

Fourth, Instaputz displays a picture of me and then says sexual things about me. . . . By the way a "putz" is a little penis, so he might want to order the fried calamari instead of the onion rings.
Uh, ok, couple things:

1. The online names of the two bloggers at Instaputz.com are "TS" and "Blue Texan," not "Instaputz." (She can't even claim here that she was talking about the site generally, since she then uses "he" rather than "it" or "they.")

2. The "Instaputz" in the name refers to Glenn Reynolds, not the bloggers, as a cursory reading of the title bar would reveal: "Systematically documenting the putziness of Glenn Reynolds, Pajamas Media, and various other Putzen."

3. "Putz" just means "penis," Althouse. I grew up around Yiddish speakers. More colloquially, it means "fool" or "jerk." "Little" doesn't play into it.

4. So, by getting pretty much every item in those two sentences wrong, all she really managed to achieve, via special Lunatic Ju Jitsu, was to inadvertently accuse Glenn Reynolds of having a small penis.

Well played, Altmouse!

4. So, by getting pretty much every item in those two sentences wrong, all she really managed to achieve, via special Lunatic Ju Jitsu, was to inadvertently accuse Glenn Reynolds of having a small penis.

So THAT'S why Dr. Helen always seems so grumpy.

Does it start with an I, von?

Sorry to say, no. An "S" (for one) and a "B" (for another).

By the way a "putz" is a little penis, so he might want to order the fried calamari instead of the onion rings.

Wait, really? That's twice she's attempted to insult a blogger by relating the blogger's handle to penis size? And, as Phil mentions, misattributing the name of her critic both times in the bargain?

There's something disturbing about the fact that someone might have voted for: Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton - though if Hillary wins, presumably that isn't a null set.

Not that I really believe she has an open mind about Clinton, given the fact that she a) was a liberterian who b) voted for Bush in 2004.

Jebus, if ever a thread needed John Thullen...(I second OCSteve's hope that he is in fact ok. I miss him so.)

Not that I really believe she has an open mind about Clinton, given the fact that she a) was a liberterian who b) voted for Bush in 2004.

Just to be clear, there are a lot of Libertarians in the blogosphere who aren't Libertarians at all, but rather wanted an excuse to poke liberals in the eye and/or support everything the Bush Administration, all while maintaining nominal neutrality.

From personal experience -- I was a member of the Libertarian party and helped found the Libertarian student group where I went to school (many years ago) -- real Libertarians fall into four groups:

1. Cranks.
2. People who really, really like Marijuana.
3. A certain Teedy and/or extra nerdy subset of college professors in a field that has really, really clear rules (math, engineering, etc.).
4. Folks who, omiGod, just read the Fountainhead, like, yesterday and, wow, look at this cool test that I picked up in the student union showing that I'm totally in the upper-tup quadrangling meaning I'm really libertarian and, wow, that explains why all the major party candidates are so stupid and I'm sure that the libertarians are all pure and stuff -- kinda like Green Day or Nirvana before they went major label (sellouts) and, OK, where do I sign up?

There is substantial overlap between 1 and 3.

von,

When you were a college libertarian, you could not have been 3. Care to shed light on whether you fit into category 1, 2 or 4? Or any multiple categories? Inquiring minds want to know.

There's a category 5. of apparently perfectly sensible people like Jim Henley, where I just don't get what makes them libertarians rather than liberals particularly concerned with civil liberties issues.

4. My first true love was alcohol, to the exclusion go the various alternatives (elimating 2), and I'm a good drunk (elimating 4).

elimating = eliminating.

von,

You claimed and then eliminated 4. Is that a sign of your crankiness?

Or a sign that you're not a libertarian any more?

Jon Swift FTW.

You claimed and then eliminated 4. Is that a sign of your crankiness?

Typed 4 but meant to eliminate 1. Sorry.

Or a sign that you're not a libertarian any more?

Yup. It's neither a practical philosophy nor a good one. I wouldn't want to live in a world with no public schools, for instance.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad